Thomas wrote:: Blue, How can you prove two planes brought down three buildings. You keep demanding proof from those who have no power or authority to obtain it and say that is evidence they are wrong.
What I have said is that the CD conspiracy theory isn't credible because it is not supported by direct, clear-cut, first-hand evidence. The conspiricists have no idea--nary a clue--as to who planted the bombs and how they did it.
: The fact that evidence has been hidden and destroyed is evidence of a crime.
You don't know that with certitude. The fact that the site was quickly cleared and some steel was shipped abroad without being properly examined may or may not, in and of itself, constitute a crime.
: The fact that fire could not have generated enough heat to melt the steel is evidence the planes were a diversion.
No it isn't. The steel didn't have to be melted, only softened.
: Your position is, unless they have the name of the murderer and know all the details of how it happened, than the fire was the cause of death.
That isn't my position. Fire certainly caused some deaths, and it was a major contributor to the collapse of WTC-7.
: We know the planes were a diversion.
Really? Astonishing! How do "we know the planes were a diversion"? Details, please.
natasha wrote:Ron Paul stated on the air when asked regarding 9/11...that it was "preposterous". (His word, not mine) However, I don't see anyone here attacking him for his position.
To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them.
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
One last question Blue... have you ever read the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, specifically chapter 8? If so, what is the chapter all about? And here's a little two minute segment from former church President Ezra Taft Benson on conspiracies:
natasha wrote:Ron Paul stated on the air when asked regarding 9/11...that it was "preposterous". (His word, not mine) However, I don't see anyone here attacking him for his position.
To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them.
Col: I suggest you read p. 63 of our RS/Priesthood manual for this year....it's in chapter 6.
natasha wrote:Ron Paul stated on the air when asked regarding 9/11...that it was "preposterous". (His word, not mine) However, I don't see anyone here attacking him for his position.
To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them.
This is exactly it. Sorry, Mark & Semp. RP supports a new investigation into 9/11. Good enough for me.
P.S. Mark, it's funny how you choose to see "hypocrisy" in RP followers with 9/11 but fail to see Semp's hypocrisy with gadiantons and church leaders. Yes, it is possible to still sustain church leaders and at the same time believe what we want to about conspiracies and gadianton robbers. Yes, it is possible to still sustain Ron Paul and at the same time know that 9/11 was an inside job. No hypocrisy here.
P.P.S Natasha- I believe Col Flagg was suggesting the Church has decided not to "tweak the tail of the beast."
Brother Marion Law, he said:
"I was a member of the police commission in Calgary and in Canada and much involved in the anti-Communist activities, in fact, I was the first director of the Freeman Institute in Provo, Utah with Cleon Skousen. But I left that association and that activity because of President Lee's request that we not tweak the tail of the beast. He told Bro. Skousen his whole program, the prophet is under constant pressure to protect the church against our own government. He said the beast is alive and thriving and he said we are threatened constantly with annihilation of the church, its properties, its ways of doing things, by our own system of government. He asked Bro. Benson to give no more anti-Communist talks and you have not heard him since that time. It's kind of interesting; we have to be aware that when the prophet is changed, that often the direction of the church is changed."
Joseph Smith Not Always Wise to Expose Evil Section Six 1843-44, p.392 -- June 27, 1844.
"Our lives have already become jeopardized by revealing the wicked and bloodthirsty purposes of our enemies; and for the future we must cease to do so. All we have said about them is truth, but it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father's kingdom. When still a boy He had all the intelligence necessary to enable Him to rule and govern the kingdom of the Jews, and could reason with the wisest and most profound doctors of law and divinity, and make their theories and practice to appear like folly compared with the wisdom He possessed; but He was a boy only, and lacked physical strength even to defend His own person; and was subject to cold, to hunger and to death. So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; we have the revelation of Jesus, and the knowledge within us is sufficient to organize a righteous government upon the earth, and to give universal peace to all mankind, if they would receive it, but we lack the physical strength, as did our Savior when a child, to defend our principles, and we have a necessity to be afflicted, persecuted and smitten, and to bear it patiently until Jacob is of age, then he will take care of himself."
The Prophet's Dream
Joseph related the following dream which he had last night:
I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.
"While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.
"The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
"I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.
"He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.
"I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.
"While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.
"When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended."
Both Joseph and Hyrum bore a faithful testimony to the Latter-day work, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and prophesied of the triumph of the Gospel over all the earth, exhorting the brethren present to faithfulness and persevering diligence in proclaiming the Gospel, building up the Temple, and performing all the duties connected with our holy religion.
natasha wrote:Ron Paul stated on the air when asked regarding 9/11...that it was "preposterous". (His word, not mine) However, I don't see anyone here attacking him for his position.
To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them.
This is exactly it. Sorry, Mark & Semp. RP supports a new investigation into 9/11. Good enough for me.
P.S. Mark, it's funny how you choose to see "hypocrisy" in RP followers with 9/11 but fail to see Semp's hypocrisy with gadiantons and church leaders. Yes, it is possible to still sustain church leaders and at the same time believe what we want to about conspiracies and gadianton robbers. Yes, it is possible to still sustain Ron Paul and at the same time know that 9/11 was an inside job. No hypocrisy here.
P.P.S Natasha- I believe Col Flagg was suggesting the Church has decided not to "tweak the tail of the beast."
Brother Marion Law, he said:
"I was a member of the police commission in Calgary and in Canada and much involved in the anti-Communist activities, in fact, I was the first director of the Freeman Institute in Provo, Utah with Cleon Skousen. But I left that association and that activity because of President Lee's request that we not tweak the tail of the beast. He told Bro. Skousen his whole program, the prophet is under constant pressure to protect the church against our own government. He said the beast is alive and thriving and he said we are threatened constantly with annihilation of the church, its properties, its ways of doing things, by our own system of government. He asked Bro. Benson to give no more anti-Communist talks and you have not heard him since that time. It's kind of interesting; we have to be aware that when the prophet is changed, that often the direction of the church is changed."
Joseph Smith Not Always Wise to Expose Evil Section Six 1843-44, p.392 -- June 27, 1844.
"Our lives have already become jeopardized by revealing the wicked and bloodthirsty purposes of our enemies; and for the future we must cease to do so. All we have said about them is truth, but it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father's kingdom. When still a boy He had all the intelligence necessary to enable Him to rule and govern the kingdom of the Jews, and could reason with the wisest and most profound doctors of law and divinity, and make their theories and practice to appear like folly compared with the wisdom He possessed; but He was a boy only, and lacked physical strength even to defend His own person; and was subject to cold, to hunger and to death. So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; we have the revelation of Jesus, and the knowledge within us is sufficient to organize a righteous government upon the earth, and to give universal peace to all mankind, if they would receive it, but we lack the physical strength, as did our Savior when a child, to defend our principles, and we have a necessity to be afflicted, persecuted and smitten, and to bear it patiently until Jacob is of age, then he will take care of himself."
The Prophet's Dream
Joseph related the following dream which he had last night:
I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.
"While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.
"The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
"I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.
"He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.
"I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.
"While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.
"When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended."
Both Joseph and Hyrum bore a faithful testimony to the Latter-day work, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and prophesied of the triumph of the Gospel over all the earth, exhorting the brethren present to faithfulness and persevering diligence in proclaiming the Gospel, building up the Temple, and performing all the duties connected with our holy religion.
Great post I.W.!
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
natasha wrote:Ron Paul stated on the air when asked regarding 9/11...that it was "preposterous". (His word, not mine) However, I don't see anyone here attacking him for his position.
To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them.
Col: I suggest you read p. 63 of our RS/Priesthood manual for this year....it's in chapter 6.
I hope you're not equating not sustaining those the Lord sustains with questioning coddling LDG's down at BYU as this wouldn't even be in the ball park comparatively speaking.
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Blue, Liken my comments about the murder investigation, to the 9/11 investigation. Murderers start a fire to create a diversion, with the intent of fooling police into thinking the fire was the cause of death. The investigator would first try to determine if a crime was committed or if the death was from fire. The forensic investigator knows there are signs of a death from fire including, soot in the lungs, CO2 in the blood, etc. They would also look for signs or other causes of death, like poison, wounds, etc. THE DISCOVERY OF THERMITE IS AKIN TO FINDING POISON IN THE BLOOD OF A MURDER VICTIM. If you find poison in the blood, you now know the fire was a diversion, just like finding thermite in the the 9/11 debris proves the planes were a diversion. That is the proof!
Just like a murder victim not having soot in the lungs and CO2 in the blood, the fires in the buildings were not sufficent to cause their collapse, let alone turn 90 percent of the buildings into dust. At that point you need no further evidence, to know the planes were a diversion. Fire on the upper floors could not have weakened steel on floors 80 levels below the fire. Peolpe were still walking out of the buildings at time of the collapse. Heat intense enough to weaken the steel would have killed any humans.
This is all we need to know in order to prove the planes were a diversion. We don't need any other details. Absence of any other knowledge doesn't negate that fact, just like a forensic investigator would know a murder took place by finding poison in the blood. They would not need any other details to know a murder took place. The fact that the murder remains unsolved does not matter, just like it does not matter that we don't know how 9/11 took place. We still know the planes were a diversion.
Mark wrote:I love it Semp. You can see through the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the minds of many on this forum when it comes to 9-11. Ron Paul denounces 9-11 conspiracy as harmful to him and his campaign and asks his supporters to cease and desist any demands of further investigation into govt corruption and all you hear are excuses for him.
There is no consistency on this argument. Blue takes the same position as Paul and he is crucified. Yet Paul continues to get a pass time and again? And Paul could actually make a difference in calling for a formal investigation into govt. inconsistencies on this entire affair. What a joke.
You and Jason are the only ones here who actually are willing to look at the inconsistencies of ALL politicians and not hide behind well established paradigms of see no evil when it comes to your man. Kudos Bro in at least trying to be consistent across the political spectrum.
BTW did you break into Anthony Larsens home and steal all his stuff? I wish Larsen wouldn't take the attitude of wanting to take his ball and go home because of a lack of exposure to his research. Perhaps money is a factor? Who knows..
Thanks Mark! Just trying to be more like you. And I do try and hold our elected officials to a higher standard. I have in the past attacked bluemoon, but at least I have done the same with Ron Paul. I am trying to turn the page and grow up a little. You wont be seeing me attack bluemoon this time around. Truth is I am so over 9/11 at this point. And I don't know the truth about 9/11, but I do know for a fact we have been lied to. And I can't stand being lied to. I want answers and the truth. It appears to me Ron Paul is about neither. But apparently Ron Paul could care less about 9/11 and more importantly the present and how we now have a communist, infidel, usurper in the White House who is bent on bringing about our destruction who isn't even constitutionally eligible to be our president. He is one of many enemies to everything we hold dear. You can take it to the bank you will never hear Ron Paul say that. Nope he tells us that our enemy is a Constitutional expert who is Constitutionally eligible to serve as commander and chief.. He mocks these movements yet is constantly compared to some of the best men to walk this earth. I see our dear prophet Joseph Smith get questioned more around here more than Ron Paul. The way I see it Mark is Ron Paul carries a banner that says "Constitution" while leading them down a completely different path that only leads to one end... DEAD END! Destruction.
Also, I didn't know that Anthony Larson has quit playing ball?? Are you saying he's done because of lack of exposure? Feel me in brother. He needs to suck that up! I give mad props to Anthony. MAD!! He should have his own class room at the BYU if you ask me. But the truth is I like discovering things on my own with the Holy Ghost to tell me what is and what is not truth. I have learned much from Anthony but IMO with an understanding of the nature of the universe I believe everything comes together on it's own. Not sure what I could do to help him. Even though I have told many people to take his classes that I myself have not taken. Hopefully the thread... "Evidence for an Electric Universe" will bring him a tiny bit more exposure. Even if it is only one person. IMO Anthony needs to put more focus into all the new discoveries being made, put a little more focus into the nature of the universe because he doesn't give this much attention. Which was the first step for me. Not that it is a bad thing because I think he is incredible and deserves all the respect in this world. His main focus is on ancient history, prophecy, and the restored gospel but rarely discusses what I have attempted to present. Who knows. Maybe I should send him an email. And I don't think it is about the money. I think he is discouraged at the lack of interest.
On the money once again Bro. Sheriff Joe spends 6 months and thousands of man hours investigating our con artist at Pennsylvania Ave and determines that his birth certificate is a fraud. Now this should be something any true constitutionalist latches onto and screams from every mike that further investigation into this fraud should be a priority to determine if this in fact has real merit. Yet I hear nothing from the Paul camp on this. Nada. This could be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people and hardly a peep out there in Congress about this investigations findings. Pathetic.
I have found that politics is so full of compromising mud holes with so little integrity that it is hardly worth the time to agonize over. No politician out there is going to save us from ourselves. Righteousness exalteth a nation. Nothing else will. Period.
BTW here is a great talk by one of my favorite authors that I reread today. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to what ails us. No slick politicians will do the trick. It just can't work without those principles of repentance and virtue and morality as taught to us by our Savior. My apologies if you have already seen this.
Mark wrote:On the money once again Bro. Sheriff Joe spends 6 months and thousands of man hours investigating our con artist at Pennsylvania Ave and determines that his birth certificate is a fraud. Now this should be something any true constitutionalist latches onto and screams from every mike that further investigation into this fraud should be a priority to determine if this in fact has real merit. Yet I hear nothing from the Paul camp on this. Nada. This could be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people and hardly a peep out there in Congress about this investigations findings. Pathetic.
I have found that politics is so full of compromising mud holes with so little integrity that it is hardly worth the time to agonize over. No politician out there is going to save us from ourselves. Righteousness exalteth a nation. Nothing else will. Period.
BTW here is a great talk by one of my favorite authors that I reread today. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to what ails us. No slick politicians will do the trick. It just can't work without those principles of repentance and virtue and morality as taught to us by our Savior. My apologies if you have already seen this.
Mark, buddy... good to see you lurking around the board... you really do need to visit more.
I think you know as well as the rest of us why no one in Washington is challenging Obama's constitutional legitimacy to be president - if they did, exposed Sheriff Joe's findings or called him out on it publicly, this is what would await them...
If you and I and dozens of others here in the forum know Obama is a fraud, then so does every politician in Washington, DC, but who knows how many of those people have dirt on someone else who has dirt on someone else, etc.? There could be a mass domino effect of scandals that erupt with a lot of politicians if just one rats out another, so they keep their mouths shut so they can collect their cushy $150,000/year salary, golden parachute upon retirement and other perks, all at taxpayer expense. That's the problem. Remember when Clinton was impeached? They knew they had to put on a show for the public to make it look like they were throwing the book at him, but was he actually removed from office? Nope, and he knew he wouldn't be, especially given the 107 people who were suicided while he was in office that had some kind of political tie to him. DC politics is pure evil and it's amazing Ron hasn't been eliminated yet, but I guess with the mainstream media successfully convincing the apathetic and politically-illiterate public that he's a kooky extremist, why worry about taking him out? I agree 100% though - Obama's election is one of the biggest frauds ever committed upon this nation (next to 9/11 of course).
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Thomas wrote:Blue, Liken my comments about the murder investigation, to the 9/11 investigation. Murderers start a fire to create a diversion, with the intent of fooling police into thinking the fire was the cause of death. The investigator would first try to determine if a crime was committed or if the death was from fire. The forensic investigator knows there are signs of a death from fire including, soot in the lungs, CO2 in the blood, etc. They would also look for signs or other causes of death, like poison, wounds, etc. THE DISCOVERY OF THERMITE IS AKIN TO FINDING POISON IN THE BLOOD OF A MURDER VICTIM. If you find poison in the blood, you now know the fire was a diversion, just like finding thermite in the the 9/11 debris proves the planes were a diversion. That is the proof!
Just like a murder victim not having soot in the lungs and CO2 in the blood, the fires in the buildings were not sufficent to cause their collapse, let alone turn 90 percent of the buildings into dust. At that point you need no further evidence, to know the planes were a diversion. Fire on the upper floors could not have weakened steel on floors 80 levels below the fire. Peolpe were still walking out of the buildings at time of the collapse. Heat intense enough to weaken the steel would have killed any humans.
This is all we need to know in order to prove the planes were a diversion. We don't need any other details. Absence of any other knowledge doesn't negate that fact, just like a forensic investigator would know a murder took place by finding poison in the blood. They would not need any other details to know a murder took place. The fact that the murder remains unsolved does not matter, just like it does not matter that we don't know how 9/11 took place. We still know the planes were a diversion.
No disrespect intended, Thomas, but your labored explanation doesn't "fly."
BlueMoon5 wrote:No disrespect intended, Thomas, but your labored explanation doesn't "fly."
You indicate no disrespect Bluemoon, but all you've done with the 9/11 issue is disrespect persons and ignore those who have presented all of the evidence to you ad nauseum what truly occurred that day while continuing to promote your absurd stance that the feds' official story is gospel. Let me ask you - what do you tell your students when they attempt to argue/debate with you over an issue that they've clearly not done their homework over?
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
BlueMoon5 wrote:No disrespect intended, Thomas, but your labored explanation doesn't "fly."
You indicate no disrespect Bluemoon, but all you've done with the 9/11 issue is disrespect persons and ignore those who have presented all of the evidence to you ad nauseum what truly occurred that day while continuing to promote your absurd stance that the feds' official story is gospel.
Is it disrespectful to ask questions of persons who make claims about a given issue, be it 9/11 or something else? If a claim has merit, the person being questioned about it should feel secure and confident in responding, rather than taking offense.
You sincerely believe you "truly" know what "occurred that day." In fact, you don't possess such knowledge. You have cobbled together a set of circumstances that support your conspiracy theory, while dismissing circumstances that contradict it (a process known as "selective reinforcement"). Were you under cross-examination in a court of law, a reasonably competent attorney could expeditiously dismantle your case. You would be at a loss to provide even rudimentary information in support of your CD theory, such as--just for starters--the source of the tons of explosives and incendiaries required for controlled demolition of the three buildings. You would have no answer for that, or for any of the other logistics related to rigging the buildings with bombs.
: Let me ask you - what do you tell your students when they attempt to argue/debate with you over an issue that they've clearly not done their homework over?
I retired from teaching several years ago (also, it wasn't my principal profession). But to answer your question, I would encourage them to prove me wrong by writing a research paper using peer-reviewed journals as sources. One thing I would never do would be to engage in some form of adhominem attack.
Col said: To question the events of 9/11 publicly and in the mainstream media would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story, although, he has, on many occasions, said a new investigation is needed. This situation is no different than our own church leaders condemning secret combinations and conspiring men as the ultimate in evil while coddling the very same LDG's at BYU or in Salt Lake and worse, bestowing honorary doctorates in 'public service' to one of them. [/quote]
Natasha said: Col: I suggest you read p. 63 of our RS/Priesthood manual for this year....it's in chapter 6.[/quote]
Col said: What part of this chapter are you eluding to?
I hope you're not equating not sustaining those the Lord sustains with questioning coddling LDG's down at BYU as this wouldn't even be in the ball park comparatively speaking.[/quote]
Natasha's reply to Col: I thought perhaps you would read your manual at home....that was the reason for saying p.63. However, if you are reading it on line, scroll down to the section that starts with the bold statement: "When we criticize our leaders or disregard their counsel, we allow the adversary to lead us astray."....and then the whole section under it. And also, Col, once again you attempt to "know" what's in the mind of someone else.....as in construing why you think Ron Paul said the conspiracy theories were "preposterous". Yes, I know he supports more investigation into 9/11...but it could also possibly be like many of us who would welcome the same...to find out where our intelligence failed. Nonetheless....construe or misconstrue as you please...perhaps reading p.63 would fall on blind eyes.
Mark wrote:On the money once again Bro. Sheriff Joe spends 6 months and thousands of man hours investigating our con artist at Pennsylvania Ave and determines that his birth certificate is a fraud. Now this should be something any true constitutionalist latches onto and screams from every mike that further investigation into this fraud should be a priority to determine if this in fact has real merit. Yet I hear nothing from the Paul camp on this. Nada. This could be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people and hardly a peep out there in Congress about this investigations findings. Pathetic.
I have found that politics is so full of compromising mud holes with so little integrity that it is hardly worth the time to agonize over. No politician out there is going to save us from ourselves. Righteousness exalteth a nation. Nothing else will. Period.
BTW here is a great talk by one of my favorite authors that I reread today. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to what ails us. No slick politicians will do the trick. It just can't work without those principles of repentance and virtue and morality as taught to us by our Savior. My apologies if you have already seen this.
Mark, buddy... good to see you lurking around the board... you really do need to visit more.
I think you know as well as the rest of us why no one in Washington is challenging Obama's constitutional legitimacy to be president - if they did, exposed Sheriff Joe's findings or called him out on it publicly, this is what would await them...
If you and I and dozens of others here in the forum know Obama is a fraud, then so does every politician in Washington, DC, but who knows how many of those people have dirt on someone else who has dirt on someone else, etc.? There could be a mass domino effect of scandals that erupt with a lot of politicians if just one rats out another, so they keep their mouths shut so they can collect their cushy $150,000/year salary, golden parachute upon retirement and other perks, all at taxpayer expense. That's the problem. Remember when Clinton was impeached? They knew they had to put on a show for the public to make it look like they were throwing the book at him, but was he actually removed from office? Nope, and he knew he wouldn't be, especially given the 107 people who were suicided while he was in office that had some kind of political tie to him. DC politics is pure evil and it's amazing Ron hasn't been eliminated yet,No reason for him to be eliminated. He is one of them! but I guess with the mainstream media successfully convincing the apathetic and politically-illiterate public that he's a kooky extremist, why worry about taking him out? I agree 100% though - Obama's election is one of the biggest frauds ever committed upon this nation (next to 9/11 of course).
So let me see if I have you right Col... You saying by upholding the Constitution and the rule of law and exposing Obama for what he is... An unconstitutional president who is not qualified for president and in essence every single thing he or his auto pen has signed is unconstitutional would get him killed? That If Ron Paul were to bring this to light and uphold his oath to God in all his mainstream interviews and demand we uphold the constitution it would him killed or be political suicide? So what your saying is we live in tyranny? He fears government. What's sad is we keep voting for these people who wont stand up and when they don't all is well because we don't want to see anyone get killed or booted out of office. What about Obama political suicide? We wouldn’t want that now would we. As if people are not dying and families being destroyed this very second from Obama policies. ( Satans policies. And Satan is the enemy to all righteousness!) And who really cares about political suicide. These people should only be serving one term anyway. Including Ron Paul. He should have been out of office before I was born. That's how long he has been in office. And the argument could be made that Obama and what he has been able to in 3 years far surpasses Bush and 9/11. And as much as I despise Bush he couldn't lick the dirt of Obama shoes.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
You are right in a way. ALL Media and politicians will not touch Obama's ineligibility, nor will they touch on 9/11, Obama Care, war on terror, war on drugs ect..... There are a few things one is not allowed to say or they get fired, persecuted ect... So let me ask you this... What is the greater threat to the establishment..... The truth about 9/11? Or an audit of the Fed?? Or the truth about Obama eligibility and how ALL our elected representatives, all news outlets and the Supreme Court who are all complicit in this cover-up? Or the truth about the (R) house of representative where Ron Paul has lived for the past 35 years who have the power without one democrat vote to end Obama care today by using the power delegated to them by the US constitution and just defund it? All of which Ron Paul has chosen to side not with the Constitution and we the people but with the establishment on all these issues. Silence and mocking is what I see. So if I have you right your saying that Ron Paul wont speak up or death awaits him because these things are threats to the establishment? "It would be political suicide - it would cost him dearly to either state the truth or question the official story. That’s what I am all about, the truth! Not committing political suicide is far more important than the truth? But its ok Because Joseph said it not always wise to expose evil and it's exactly the excuse you Paul supporters make in every case. In essence he can do no wrong. Have an excuse for all his wrongs. It's ironic every point I make about Ron Paul I get this response but at the same time I hear " Ron Paul has done more for liberty than any man walking the earth." He is not afraid of the establishment.
So I take it that an audit of the fed is no threat than. Because if it were a threat like 9/11 or Obama eligibility it would cost Ron Paul his life or he would be committing political suicide.. Or as he says, he doesn't "want to get laughed out of congress." Like I have said many times before, an audit of the fed has always been pointless. Road to nowhere. Is the Federal Reserve Bank Constitutional or is it not? He wants to get rid of it?? An audit will lead to this? Sorry. Maybe he should start demanding we uphold the Law of the land which states "Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;". But at the same time all I hear around here is that Ron Paul fights for us and the constitution and has a proven record of standing up to the establishment. Like trying to audit the fed.
So why do you and many other shout from the rooftops that Ron Paul is a defender of liberty and the Constitution when he is obviously OK with siding with the establishment on so many things? Info warrior says Ron Paul supports a new investigation and that's enough for him. Infowarrior is being played big-time. Ron Paul has denounced 9-11 conspiracy "as harmful to him and his campaign and asks his supporters to cease and desist any demands of further investigation into govt corruption and all you hear are excuses for him." He has in fact hurt the movement you are pushing for. The truth. But because he says a few times he supports a new investigation all is well. Talk is cheap fellas. Ron Paul plays both sides of the fence. How can you not see this. Put him on Glen Beck, CNN, CNBC and he will denounce it and put 9/11 as far as possible from him. But put him in front of his supporters with a small video camera and he than, and only than does he say he supports a new investigation. That's what I call a politician and what I call being hustled. Talk is cheap. If he really supported a new investigation why has he not done one single thing to bring one about?? I wonder why? He could care less about 9/11 or a new investigation. His wods and actions say so. If he actually cared he wouldn't just support a new investigation he would be demanding one! Huge difference.
If Ron Paul’s political career is the reason he doesn't speak up fearing his political standing than he doesn't stand for the Constitution and our rights plain and simple. If it is because he fears for his life than our country is officially lost. We are officially a dictatorship. The rule of law and the Constitution means nothing anymore. Not one person from congress or the senate has stood up for the people, the law, or the Constitution in regards to Obama's natural born status. Our country is long gone. All completely silent, including Ron Paul. Not one person stood up for truth, not one person demanding we uphold the rule of law and the constitution. Which means they can do whatever they want, no accountability. People tell me all the time, its only one issue, or that I am to work up on the birther issue and I need to drop it. But why should I not demand as an American that we uphold the Constitution? I believe the Constitution is the law of the land. Once I give up on that basic premise, America no longer even has the potential of pulling itself out of the lawlessness it has embraced and rediscovering all that made us great and different. Does the rule of law and the constitution mean anything anyone anymore? All hope I had in this country is long gone. We officially have a dictatorship. What good are our democratic institutions if they don’t stand up for the people? The Voice of the people didn't matter one bit. The focus needs to be on the rule of law. ALL our representative have failed us. Not one person stood up against this dictatorship and their treasonous acts who completely ignore the Law. Our government has failed America in both cases. We, the people of the United States, had a right to resolution on this crucial issue, but no one has done jack squat about it. Not even Ron Paul. Plain and simple.
And Mark is right in so many ways! Like when he said..."This could be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people and hardly a peep out there in Congress about this investigations findings. Pathetic." I agree with this assessment. I believe Obama eligibility is one of the biggest lies and deception of our lifetime. But beside the insurmountable evidence which proves Obama Is a fraud along with his birth certificate, besides Bro. Sheriff Joe great and hard work and many others, what does the Law of the land say......
The constitution stipulates that only Natural- born citizen is qualified for president. Natural- born citizen does not have to do with where one is born but weather your parents can pass on citizenship. What does the LAW say about this? Bottom line, Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). All anyone has to do is look up immigration laws! The law states; “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14." Barrack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, the mother fails the test for not living here in the US for 5 years over the age of 14. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. His mother would have needed to have been 14+5= 19 years old, at the time of Barrack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office. Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. I sent the immigration law to Ron Paul but it was pointless. He doesn't care why should any of you? I do care though!
A true American hero and a decorated Army Lt. Colonel, Terrence Larkin who believes in upholding his oath to God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; No matter the situation or the consequences. Lt. Colonel, Terrence Larkin was sent to a federal prison for challenging the eligibility of Mr. Obama to be Commander-in-Chief and separated from his wife and 3 kids. He was allowed no witnesses, no discovery process, and could not ask for any documentation of Mr. Obama's citizenship. Why is this such a state secret? Lt. Colonel, Terrence Larkin knew the consequences, he knew the most probable outcome, (prison) But none of it mattered because be believed what he was doing was right, he had made an oath to God and knew one day he would have to stand before Him and an account of his oath he made. He feared God more than man and was willing to fight for what he believed. He has served our country proud, yet none of our representative were there to fight for him as he did for them and to make sure this American Heroes rights were upheld and weren’t. To bad we don't have more men like him. A United States Navy Commander says the denial of Lt. Colonel Larkin’s constitutional rights proves our country is in a state of tyranny. And he's 100% right. We need more men like Terrence Larkin. Less people like Ron Paul. People who are willing to stand for the truth no matter the consequence, no matter the result, because they believe with all there heart they are doing what is right! There names have been damaged for the rest of our time but one day will be vindicated by God Almighty!
What makes Ron Paul so superior to Army Lt. Colonel, Terrence Larkin? There is a huge difference between Ron Paul and Terrence Larkin. One is truly an American hero who stands for truth while the other one is a life long politician.... I will quote Mark one more time who puts it in a way I cannot... "No politician out there is going to save us from ourselves. Righteousness exalteth a nation. Nothing else will." Our problem is we have forgotten who our Father in Heaven is. Only repentance, forgiveness, honesty, the truth, loving thy neighbor as thyself ect.. will turn this around. "Righteousness exalteth a nation."
Thanks Mark for the post and the talk. Way profound!!! I am reading Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley for the 4th time and that talk is right in line with that. Thankyou! I have already passed it along to friends and family.
And infowarrior; where’s my hypocrisy with gadiantons and church leaders? I think you have that the wrong way. Should I be demanding our leaders to talk conspiracy and 9/11 every General conference? They have the message right.... Come unto Christ!! I have read so much of Dallin H Oaks and I have more respect for him than I can express. He Is an apostle of the Lord. And if he were to be serving in congress or the senate I would be holding him to the same standard as Ron Paul. If Ezra Taft Benson were alive and a congressman today I would be saying the same thing. The Holy Apostleship and congress have two different responsibilities. And let me just say I don't think Dallin H Oaks has ever voted for Ron Paul to be president. IMO. Never once have I not been overwhelmed with the spirit after a general conference. Not once. I swear to you on many occasions I felt like the message presented was just for me only. I will be talking to my mom afterwards and say did you catch this. She will say, are you sure he said that? I don't remember him saying anything of the sort. I will just tell her it must have been the spirit talking just to me. I always feel the spirit BUT I have never once felt the spirit listening to Ron Paul. Not Once. Not even when I was a hard core follower of his.
I know every prophet in this dispensation are doing what the Lord Commands. Unlike many others around here don't believe this. Point the hypocrisy elsewhere. Am I on point Mark? And I don’t have to justify anything from our leaders. You two do.
Tell me how you feel after listening to this talk and ask yourself if you have ever felt this way after listening to Ron Paul. I know I haven't. Elder Dallin H Oaks speaks with real power and authority. He speaks with power as a Apostle of the Lord. He talks about meaningful and correct principals. Everything he talks about he does with a constitutional stand point. Talks about economics, corruption, marriage, and where our "rights" come from which you will never hear from Ron Paul talk about this because he disagrees big-time with this apostle. He talks real solutions. Mark hit it right on the head! Things we all should work on. He also talks about recent official expressions that narrow the field of activities protected by the free exercise of religion. 26:25 he talks about this and goes on to quote Obama a few times. This talk really hit home for me more than one way. None of which you will ever hear from Ron Paul.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech at Chapman University School of Law; Talk on: The State of Religious Freedom in the United States;
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Telsa
I don't know if this video has ever been posted before, and it really doesn't matter. I thought I'd post it here having found it very informative. It is about 1:24 in length. It includes research by four women whose husbands and/or sons were killed. 911 was filled with coverup and lies. Watch this video.
Last edited by freedomfighter on Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It takes INDEPENDENCE of mind, HONESTY of heart, FAITH in God, FIRMNESS of character to live the life of a LDS in the face of a frowning world and in the midst of trials, troubles and persecution. Wilford W.
natasha wrote:I thought perhaps you would read your manual at home....that was the reason for saying p.63.
I know it would be different in the manual compared to online - I just thought instead of looking it up at home in the manual, I'd look for it on lds.org.
However, if you are reading it on line, scroll down to the section that starts with the bold statement: "When we criticize our leaders or disregard their counsel, we allow the adversary to lead us astray."....and then the whole section under it.
There is a big difference in directly criticizing church leadership and asking questions or expressing alarm over something like BYU allowing war criminal Dick Cheney to speak to graduating students and then bestowing an honorary doctorate in 'public service' upon him when he was directly involved in the wargame exercises on the morning of 9/11 (gee, what a coincidence) which prevented the intercept of the airplanes (which we now know the hijackers were in control of before the planes even took off and if you don't believe me, look into it for yourself). We are perfectly within our right to question these decisions by church leadership and it is possible to do so without direct criticism. I've stated many times my belief for them allowing it to occur as well (which I know you know).
And also, Col, once again you attempt to "know" what's in the mind of someone else.....
Why do you keep insinuating this? It's my opinion - I don't profess to know what's in anyone's mind.
as in construing why you think Ron Paul said the conspiracy theories were "preposterous". Yes, I know he supports more investigation into 9/11...but it could also possibly be like many of us who would welcome the same...to find out where our intelligence failed.
Our 'intelligence' didn't fail - it was a deliberate false flag event designed to achieve what we have witnessed over the past 10 years as well as the numerous financial motives involved. That is a fact.
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
natasha wrote:I thought perhaps you would read your manual at home....that was the reason for saying p.63.
I know it would be different in the manual compared to online - I just thought instead of looking it up at home in the manual, I'd look for it on lds.org.
However, if you are reading it on line, scroll down to the section that starts with the bold statement: "When we criticize our leaders or disregard their counsel, we allow the adversary to lead us astray."....and then the whole section under it.
[quote}: [color=#800000]There is a big difference in directly criticizing church leadership and asking questions or expressing alarm over something like BYU allowing war criminal Dick Cheney to speak to graduating students and then bestowing an honorary doctorate in 'public service' upon him when he was directly involved in the wargame exercises on the morning of 9/11 (gee, what a coincidence) which prevented the intercept of the airplanes (which we now know the hijackers were in control of before the planes even took off and if you don't believe me, look into it for yourself).
BYU's Board of Trustees and BYU's executives are exceptionally well-informed individuals. Moreover, they are led by the Spirit. Obviously, they do not accept your "war criminal" characterization of former VP Dick Cheney. Rather, they observe the rule of law, a fundamental tenet of which is that a person is innocent until proven guilty (as a devout defender of the Constitution, I assume you're familiar with that). You accuse Mr. Cheney of facilitating the 9/11 attacks, proof for which is a product of your proclivity for accepting conjecture and coincidences as bonafide evidence.
You say "the hijackers were in control. . .before the planes even took off." Please explain, in detail, what you mean by that.
BlueMoon5 wrote:BYU's Board of Trustees and BYU's executives are exceptionally well-informed individuals. Moreover, they are led by the Spirit. Obviously, they do not accept your "war criminal" characterization of former VP Dick Cheney.
And you know this how? Are you familiar with Joseph Smith's comment that sometimes it is better to make friends with those who want to destroy you than it is to challenge their evil works?
You accuse Mr. Cheney of facilitating the 9/11 attacks, proof for which is a product of your proclivity for accepting conjecture and coincidences as bonafide evidence.
Bluemoon, how many times has his involvement in the wargame exercises been indicated to you, yet, here, you continue to assert that it is all 'conjecture'. This has become an exercise in futility with you.
You say "the hijackers were in control. . .before the planes even took off." Please explain, in detail, what you mean by that.
BlueMoon5 wrote:BYU's Board of Trustees and BYU's executives are exceptionally well-informed individuals. Moreover, they are led by the Spirit. Obviously, they do not accept your "war criminal" characterization of former VP Dick Cheney.
And you know this how? Are you familiar with Joseph Smith's comment that sometimes it is better to make friends with those who want to destroy you than it is to challenge their evil works?
As a member of the Church in good standing (I assume that's accurate), you 1) don't know that BYU's Board of Trustees and BYU's executives are exceptionally well-informed individuals, and 2) you don't know that they are led by the Spirit. That, in essence, is what you have stated. Perhaps you would like to post a clarification.
You accuse Mr. Cheney of facilitating the 9/11 attacks, proof for which is a product of your proclivity for accepting conjecture and coincidences as bonafide evidence.
: Bluemoon, how many times has his involvement in the wargame exercises been indicated to you, yet, here, you continue to assert that it is all 'conjecture'. This has become an exercise in futility with you.
Involvement in the war game exercises does not make him a war criminal. Has he been indicted? Has his conduct been investigated by a grand jury? Has he been tried on charges of being a war criminal? Apparently, you do not believe in the time-honored legal dictum that a person is innocent until proven (I said proven) guilty. Is it your habit to judge people guilty of criminal activity without benefit of a trial?
You say "the hijackers were in control. . .before the planes even took off." Please explain, in detail, what you mean by that.
Your referenced site ("9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible") falls far short of explaining your claim. In fact, its opening sentence reads, "Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence. . . ." The site never identifies the discoverer of said "alarming evidence." How credible is that? Then there is this: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point. . . ." In other words, the whole story--by the pilots' own admission--is suspect, bordering on conjecture. Yet you fully endorse it.
At least one of the operators of a flight school has stated that the hijackers who contacted him were interested only in knowing how to fly a plane once it reached operating altitude; they showed no interest in learning how to take off or land an aircraft. Does that tell you anything?
BlueMoon5 wrote:Involvement in the war game exercises does not make him a war criminal.
Oh, I get it - just like a person caught stealing from a store doesn't mean they're a thief, right?
Has he been indicted? Has his conduct been investigated by a grand jury? Has he been tried on charges of being a war criminal?
Who's gonna do that when those who would prosecute him are in the highest levels of government who either know what really happened or were involved in some way? Good luck with that and most of this country still thinks bin Laden and 19 Arabs with boxcutters completely destroyed 3 buildings with 2 airplanes anyway , so how do you indict Dick Cheney for that?
Apparently, you do not believe in the time-honored legal dictum that a person is innocent until proven (I said proven) guilty. Is it your habit to judge people guilty of criminal activity without benefit of a trial?
It's a good thing you're not a police officer BM - we'd have a lot more criminals on our streets - I can just see it now - you're an officer on duty and see a man come out of a bank with a gun in one hand, a mask on and a bag of cash and you watch as he shoots a couple shots back at the bank lobby, gets in his car and drives away without you doing anything and then when asked why you didn't intervene or try to stop him by fellow officers, you reply 'well, I wasn't in the bank to see him commit the crime, so he's innocent'.
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
BlueMoon5 wrote:Your referenced site ("9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible") falls far short of explaining your claim. In fact, its opening sentence reads, "Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence. . . ." The site never identifies the discoverer of said "alarming evidence." How credible is that? Then there is this: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point. . . ." In other words, the whole story--by the pilots' own admission--is suspect, bordering on conjecture. Yet you fully endorse it.
At least one of the operators of a flight school has stated that the hijackers who contacted him were interested only in knowing how to fly a plane once it reached operating altitude; they showed no interest in learning how to take off or land an aircraft. Does that tell you anything?
You're right Blue... this is all my own explanation, opinion and conjuring up - what do thousands of architects and engineers, academics, scholars, pilots, veterans, law enforcement personnel and the like know about the truth?
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
In the meantime, I'd like to remind everyone of the ignore feature. Aside from what you folks quote of his, I don't hear/see him. It's nice.
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours." C. S. Lewis
BlueMoon5 wrote:Involvement in the war game exercises does not make him a war criminal.
Oh, I get it - just like a person caught stealing from a store doesn't mean they're a thief, right?
So you have caught VP Cheney, in effect, "stealing from a store." No you haven't. You don't know the context of the exchange the soldier had with Secretary Mineta (assuming that's the basis for your claim).
Has he been indicted? Has his conduct been investigated by a grand jury? Has he been tried on charges of being a war criminal?
: Who's gonna do that when those who would prosecute him are in the highest levels of government who either know what really happened or were involved in some way?
This is always your "out," isn't it? Those "in the highest levels of government who either know what really happened or were involved in some way" are--wonder of wonders--participating in a vast cover-up. Circa 11 years have passed, and no one--not a soul (including those whose jobs would no longer be at risk)--has uttered a word.
: Good luck with that and most of this country still thinks bin Laden and 19 Arabs with boxcutters completely destroyed 3 buildings with 2 airplanes anyway , so how do you indict Dick Cheney for that? [/color]
The 19 Arabs set into motion events that led to the complete destruction of the buildings. That is an established fact; your CD theory is not. The fact that most of the country--including many well-informed, well-connected individuals--thinks your conspiracy theory is "crackers" should tell you something.
Apparently, you do not believe in the time-honored legal dictum that a person is innocent until proven (I said proven) guilty. Is it your habit to judge people guilty of criminal activity without benefit of a trial?
: It's a good thing you're not a police officer BM - we'd have a lot more criminals on our streets - I can just see it now - you're an officer on duty and see a man come out of a bank with a gun in one hand, a mask on and a bag of cash and you watch as he shoots a couple shots back at the bank lobby, gets in his car and drives away without you doing anything and then when asked why you didn't intervene or try to stop him by fellow officers, you reply 'well, I wasn't in the bank to see him commit the crime, so he's innocent'.
Your hypothetical is wildly irrelevant. Thanks, however, for offering it because it effectively illustrates your problem. If I were in one of the applicable WTC buildings and I saw a bomber planting a bomb on a column, or if I saw an installed bomb, or if I saw evidence of tampering on a column, I would immediately notify security. Unfortunately for your CD theory, you don't have anyone who witnessed such events--or anything like them.
Let me get this straight, BM... there's evidence of a controlled demolition, but since we do not have anyone in custody as suspects for planting the explosives, therefore... it could not have been a controlled demolition?
RP supports a new investigation into 9/11. Good enough for me.
I wish Larsen wouldn't take the attitude of wanting to take his ball and go home because of a lack of exposure to his research. Perhaps money is a factor? Who knows..
He mocks these movements yet is constantly compared to some of the best men to walk this earth. I see our dear prophet Joseph Smith get questioned more around here more than Ron Paul. 
The way I see it Mark is Ron Paul carries a banner that says "Constitution" while leading them down a completely different path that only leads to one end... DEAD END! Destruction. 
I wonder why? He could care less about 9/11 or a new investigation. His wods and actions say so. If he actually cared he wouldn't just support a new investigation he would be demanding one! Huge difference.
